The Soviet World of Tomorrow at the New York World’s Fair, 1939 ANTHONY SWIFT I. the early morning hours of 27 April 1939 a xed twin-engined airplane took off from Moscow, bound for New York City in an attempt to set a new nonstop distance record for transpolar flight. Among the dignitaries seeing the plane off were the high-ranking party officials Lazar Kaganovich and. Lavrentii Beria, and a representative from the American Embassy. The pilot, Colonel Vladimir Kokkinaki, was one of “Stalin’s falcons,” a group of record-breaking aviators who, the Soviets claimed, had set same sixty-two records by 1938, including the first flight to the United States fram Moscow via the Polar route. Accompa- nied only by a navigator, Kokkinaki’s destination was the New York World's Fair, opening 30 April. Itwas a brilliant publicity stunt, designed to draw attention to the Soviet pavilion, at the fair, cultivate American public opinion, and demonstrate Saviet prowess in Arctic aviation, but unfortunately the plane never arrived in New York. The flyers got last aver the Gulf of St. Lawrence and were forced to make a crash landing in northern New Brunswick After being rescued by the Canadian authorities, they continued an to New York less hero- ically, in a plane chartered by the Soviet Embassy.? Though unsuccessful, Kokkinaki’s flight received extensive coverage in the American papers, and the story of the take-off, ctash landing, and rescue made the front page of the New York Times for three straight days. The Soviet press also made much of the accom- plishment, arguing that it proved the quality of Soviet airplanes, the courage of the average Soviet citizen, and the possibility of a trans-Atlantic link between North America and the USSR? The flight, together with an Arctic exhibition building separate from the main, Soviet pavilion, associated Soviet presence at the World's Fair with one of the mast heroic myths of the 1930s: the conquest af the Aretic by Soviet man and machine* When the ‘The author thanks Neil Rabinsaa, Steve Smith, and Geveld Surh for their stimulating coments on earlier Versions of this article, one of which was presented st the 1996 national convention of the American Historical Association in Atlanta, Fora discussion of the Sovie!cultof aviation inthe 1930s sce Kendall B, Bailes, echnotagy and Society under Lenin and Stax: Origins ofthe Soviet Technical intelligentsia, 1317-1942 Princeton, 1978), 381-93. New York Times, 26, 77,28, 29, and 30 April 1939, New Fark Past, 28, 29 April 1953, 8 May 1939: 47. 5G, Baidukov, “Zamechatel nye itogi pereleta Kokkinaki i Gordienka.” and L. M. Kaganovieb, “Moskva Severnaia Amerike;" Pravda, | May 1939; Literaturnaia gazeia, | May 1939, 1,3. +See Tohn MoCannon, Red Ancic: Polar xuplonatian and rhe histh af the North in Soviet Russia, 1292-29(NEW York, (997) ‘The Russian Review 39 (Suly 1998): 364-79 Copyright 1998 Te Russian ReviewThe Soviet World of Tomarrow 365 pilots finally arrived at the fair, they were greeted by a large crowd which included the new Soviet ambassador to the United States, Konstantin Umanskii, and American representa- tives from the World’s Fair commission.’ The flight was also an effective symbol of the fair’s importance in the eyes of the Soviet government, which took full advantage of this unique opportunity to show the American public how socialism had transformed the USSR. into a powerful, technologically advanced nation, a valuable friend and a foe to he reckoned with. The Soviet Union was no stranger to the arena of international expositions. Following, its recognition by the leading European powers in 1924, it appeared at the Paris Exposition des Arts Décoratifs Moderne (1925), choosing (0 érabrace modernism and emphasize the links between the revolution and the avant-garde in a constructivist pavilion designed by Konstantin Melnikov. The Soviet Union was absent from the international exposition scene for a few years after Stalin's victory in 1927, concenteating its efforts on buildiag “socialism in one country.” although Mel nikov's pavilion was used to house an “anticalo~ nial” exposition to counter the Paris Exposition Coloniale of 1931.° In 1937, worried about Hitler's growing strength and sounding out the possibility of establishing a “united front” with Britain and France, the Soviet Union remmed to Paris for anather intemational expo- sition, anxious to demanstrate that it was a respectable member of the international com- munity and a worthy ally. There was no place for the avant-garde in the reigning aesthetic of Socialist Realism, The pavilion, designed by Boris Tofan, the architect of the projected Moscow Palace of Soviets, ultimately never built, was a monumental neoclassical structure whose vertical fagade was topped by Vera Mukhina’s now famous statue of a young work- man and peasant woman holding a hammer and a sickle. It faced Albert Speer’s pavilion of Nazi Germany, which was also grandiose, neoclassical, and vertical. The pavilions of the two ideologically opposed powers seemed to be in competition as to which could ascend higher, and their juxtaposition has since become a familiar image of prewar political ten- sion, The Soviet exhibits emphasized the nation’s rapid industrial development under the five-year plans, 4 theme that was to be prominent again at the Soviet pavilion at the New York fait? For the Saviet Union, the World’s Fair was an opportunity to demonstrate its eco- ‘nomic power and, implicitly, military preparedness, as well as to cultivate relations with the United States, which bad recognized the USSR only in 1933, Aware of the propaganda value of a strong showing at the fait, it was the first foreign nation to commit itself to building an exhibition pavilion, a decision which had the effect of drawing other countries, anxious not to be outdone, onto the fair bandwagon.’ Ina radio broadeast to the American “Mew York Times, | May 1939, M. Ol'gin, “Vstrecha ckipazha ‘Moskvy’ v Niiu-lorse," Prada, 3 May 1939. 48, Frederick Star, Meleilow: Sala Architect in Mass Society (Peitceton, 1978). 201-4, “ean-Louis Cohen, “UR.SS,” in Cinguantenairs de U'Expastion internationale des arts et des technigues dans ta vie moderne, 1937 Paris, 1987), 184-89. Im Me. Whalen’s Image,” Zimte (I May 1939): 74. The Sovict government decided to petticipate in the New ‘York World's Fair in March, 1937. See “Postanovleniia SNK SSSR ob uchasti SSSR v N'iv-Toriskoi vystavke.” Gosusarstvennyiackhiv Rossiiskoi Federatsii (GARE), Moscow f. 5673, 09. 1,4. 1.1.2. The Politburo protocols contain no record of any discussion of the matives behind the decision, but the protocol of the session of 15 Maret 1937 has @ pencil eatation indicating that additional information was filed in “delo 46-SShA, N?in-Jorkskaia _vystavia,” The archivists believe tha this le isin the Largely inaccessible Presidential Archive in Moscow. See366 Anthony Swift public in Tanuary 1939, Savier head of state Mikhail Kalinin underlined his nation’s inter- est in promoting international goodwill and collaboration, expressing the hope that by par- ticipating in the fair the Soviet Union would “contribute (o the consoli¢ation of friendly relations with the United States” He reinforced the good ueighbor image by concluding with an expression of goodwill toward American democracy.” ‘The New York World’s Fair opened af a time of intense diplomatic exchanges among the Soviet Union, Britain, and France, and negotiations aimed at forming an antiaggression front to counter Germany were underway throughout the spring and summer of 1939, al- though itis now clear that the May replacement of Maksim Litvinov with Viacheslav Molotov as foreign minister signaled the beginning of a rapprochement with Hitler. Harsbly critical of Britain and France at times, the Soviet Union in contrast maintained a cordial tone to- ward America, and its spokesmen consistently cited Soviet participation in the fair as evi- dence of its desire far friendship and closer ties with the United States. The Soviet Union also made use of the many opportunities the fair offered to convey its message to an Ameri- can audience. At the pavilion’s dedication in mid-May, newly appointed ambassador Konstantin Umanskii made what the Mew Jork Times described as “ane of the clearest out- lines of Soviet policy made by a diplomat of that country abroad sittce negotiations be- tween Russia ‘and the ‘non-aggression’ bloc in Europe began," quoting Stalin’s pledge, given at the Eighteenth Party Congress in March, to “deal a double blow for every blow Gelivered by the instigators of war who attempt to violate the Soviet borders" On present- ing his credentials to President Roosevelt in June, Unanskii seized the opportunity to reit- ‘erate that the Soviet Union’s presence at the World's Fair was evidence of its desire for good selations with the United States.!! Throughout the fair season, the Soviets used the pavilion to put across a pasitive image of a nation successfully overcoming backwardness through, socialism, holding receptions for American journalists, engineers, architects, and physi- cians to highlight Soviet accomplishments in their respective fields. When the faic closed in late 1939 the international situation had changed considerably. for the Soviet Union had abandoned its efforts at collective security to make a nonaggression pact with Germany, and the world was at war. The Soviet Union withdrew from participation in the fair's 1940 season. ‘The New York World’s Pair had been conceived as a celebration of the one hundred fiftieth anniversary of George Washington's inauguration as the first American president. Its themes Rossiiskii tsente Khxaneniia i izucheniia dokumentoy qoveishet istorii (RTSKRIDND, Moscow, f 1? (Politburo protocols) op. 163, 4, 1140, | U18, Soviet Greets US. in Salute co Fait!" Mew Voré lmer, 30 January 1959300. 15; "Tekst vystupleniia Predvedarlia Presidiuns Verkhovnogo Saveta SSSR tov Kalinina po adio dlia SShA~28 ianvacia 1939 goda,” Arkhiv vneshaoi politiki Rossiiskoi Federatsti (AVP RF), Moscow, f, 129 (Referontura po SSHA), op. 23.2. 3L.d. 59.1.3, "sQumansky offers Soviet friendship,” Mew York Zines, 18 May 1939, The 17 May opening ceremony was marred, however, by & news disaetch thar the Soviet Union had executed a mother and daughter for espionage, The story azpeared in. mary American newspapers the same day as the story of the pavilion’s dedication, prompting the New Fork Pasrta suggest sarcastically tha the Soviets needed a press agent (18 May 1939, editorial) "President Greets Two New Envoys!" New York Zines, t lone 1939. Mew art Times, 27 Tune, 25 July, 15 August, and 19 September 1939.The Soviet World of Tomorrow 367 were democracy and “The World af Tomorrow,” embodied by the Perisphere and Trylon, which dominated the fairgrounds. ‘The Perisphere was two hundred-foot diameter glabe housing “Democracity,” a mechanized model of a future garden city of a million people in which citizens of all classes worked together for the common goad. Next to the Perisphere was the Trylon, a modernistic white tower soaring to a height of seven hundred feet, The fair's corporate sponsors hoped to sell America their vision of the future, and they spent millions to convince visitors that capitalism would transform peaple’s lives for the better witha plethora of conveniences and consumer goods. The real centerpiece of the fair was General Motors’ “Futurama,” which depicted the America of 1960, when superhighways would crisscross the land and technolagy would have. solved economic problems. The corporate exhibits urged fairgoers to attain happiness hy consuming more. They repre- sented the future as a consumerist utopia." How did the Soviet Union want to represent itself to the American public? What was the Soviet vision of the future? The records of the Soviet Fair Commission are voluminous, and indicate some of thei objectives in putting together a pavilion for New York. A repart issued by the commission when. the pavilion was still in the planning stage stated that its imetior design should “reflect in powerful, monumental, artistic forms all the greatness and power of the socislist stare, reveal the socioeconomic and political structure of the Soviet state, expressed in the Stalin Constinition, and show that the future belongs only to the Soviet system” To this end, the exhibits were (a be clear and simple, emphasizing mad- emization, technology, social programs, the conquest of nature, and the ostensibly demo- cratic character of the Stalin constitution, Taking account of the experience gained at the 1937 Paris exposition, where a Soviet, government commission had criticized the scattered effect made by the profusion of exhib- its, diagrams, and charts, the fair commissioner now ordered attention to be focused on a few fundamental objects such as large panoramas and mechanized models, which had evoked the most interest among Paris fairgoers. The interior halls of the pavilion were to be spacious, enabling visitors to mave freely from one space (o the next, while prominently displayed slogans would explain the theme of each hall. ‘The efffect was intended to arouse in visitors a supposedly typical Soviet mood of “joyfulness, cheerfulness, optimism.” Film footage and examples of Soviet industrial production would supplement the slogans and reinforce their messages.‘* The pavilion, constructed of rich and imposing materials, such as marble, granite, and semiprecious stones, would show that “the old, wooden Russia has tumed into the strong industrial Soviet power”? A competition was organized in September 1937 to choose the architectural design of the pavilion, out planning went slowly at first, probably because of the disruption caused by "See Robert Rydell, World of Pais: The Century of Progress Exposisions (Chicago, 1993), 121-38. ‘"Dokladnsia zapiska o khudozhestvennykh printsipakh i organizarsii procktnysh cabot po vauttennemy ‘oformleniiu Sovetskogo Pavil'ona na N'iu-Torksko: Vystavke 1939 gods,” na dare, GARE, f.5673,op 1,4. 162.1 280. *], Mezhlauk, “O zadantiakh exkhitekcoram, uchastvuiushchim v kankurse po postroike soverskoge pavil'ona v Niiuelorke,” 1937, ibid, d. 3, | 88 "bid, d. 162,11. 281-82. Mbid 1. 282368 Anthony Swift the arrest of the head of the fair comamission, Ivan Mezhlauk, in late 1937." In May 1938 the competition was restricted to a handful of leading Socialist Realist architects who were invited to participate, ‘The artistic committee, composed of well-known artists and archi- tects, considered some proposals by architects not selected for the official competition, but found fault with them all. A five-pointed star resting on evo supports, with glass exhibition halls, was rejected as “a formalist factory,” while another project was condemned for not displaying “USSR® clearly enough on the facade. In August 1938 the Council of People's Commissars chose the projects by Boris fofan and Karo Alabian as the best, and made Iofan the chief architect, assigning Alabian ta assist him in developing the plan.” Tofan had designed the Soviet pavilion for the Paris exposition of 1937, and the struc- ure he produced for the New York fair was equally monumental, featuring asits centerpiece a towering stainless steal statue of a lone worker holding a red star astride a one-hundred- eighty-foot-high pylon. The pylon was al the center of the neoclassical main building, which formed a two-story semicircular colonnade. Iofant’s structure, not unlike other mouu- mental projects of the 1930s in both authoritarian and democratic nations, was designed to be “readable” to the public, and the narrative of the exposition confronted visitors as they approached the entrance to the pavilion. On the fagades of the two wings were relief por- traits of the ranses of revolutionary Russia, Lenin and Stalin. Article one of the Stalin constitution was inscribed on the base of the pylon: “The USSR is a socialist state of work- ers andl peasants” ‘Tha outer facade of the building was divided into eleven sections, each bearing the seal of a Soviet republic. Wide stairs led into a central amphitheater, where visitors could watch newsreels and films projected onto a screen at the base of the central pylon ‘The Soviet pavilion embodied the conception, prevaleat in the 1930s, of architecture as a return to order through monumental classicism, and its vertical lines, colonnades, and porticos drew clear references to ancient Egyptian and Greek temples. Itoffered visitors a vision of a catholic, transcendental order that was presented as having been achieved under socialism, an order which, like the semicircular colonnade in the pavilion’s interior, would welcome and embrace the individual, integrating him into the new era of human salvation it Promised. Cultic reliefs of Lenin and Stalin, humanity's guides into this new beginning, presided over the entrance, while the obelisk at the center of the interior colannade stood guard aver the sacred circle. Quasireligious symbolism was used throughout che exhibits, which could be read simultaneously as narrative and prophesy of Russia’s socialist rebirth and renewal. The pavilion and exhibits were supposed to demonstrate that the USSR embodied the two themes of the World's Pair: democracy and the world of tomorrow. The court and pylon "Mezhlauk had also been responsible for the Soviet pavilion in the 1937 Paris exposition. Prominent party officials, ae and his younger beater Valeri were arested in late 1937 and died in 1928. I have not been able ca decerttine whecher the charges levelled ac [van were telated to his involvernert withthe Paris exposition. SGARK, f.5673, 0p. 1.4. 1,13, and op.4, 4 5,1. J; RISKAIDNL, € 82 (VM. Molotay), op. 2, d. 764, |. Ml Russia Takes the Spotlight at the Fale as Het Tawering Pavilion Opens Today." Mew Yark Tones, 17 May 1929; “Usion of Soviet Socialist Republics New York World's Faie 1939" (official beachute, na date}, GARE, £ 5673, op. 3, d. 55,1.The Sovier World of Tomorrow 369. symbolized “the spirit of the new Stalin Constitution and Soviet democracy,” a representa- tive of the Soviet fair commission told reporters." The Soviet answer to “Democracity” was an extensive exhibic of the Ten-Year Plan for the Reconstruction af Moscow, centered around a large model of the Palace of the Soviets and a full-scale section of a Moscow metro station, Mechanical models and lighted dioramas, also used extensively in the other na- tional and corporate presentations at the World’s Fair, offered visitors vivid depictions of socialist progress and prosperity. The Soviet fair commissioners in New York paid close attention to the other exhibits planned for the fair, dispatching reports about them back to Moscow with suggestions of ways to compete with the marketing techniques employed by corporate America.” Reporting on the exhibits food companies were planning, the Soviet deputy commissioner called them “bizacre and spectacular,” and confidently predicted that in comparison “our displays will be all the more. impressive in their dignity’ The interior of the USSR pavilion was divided into eight exhibition spaces: an en- trance hall and separate halls devoted (o the socialist economy and labor; eulture and Jei- sure; socialist city planning; transportation and power; art; science, literature, and the press: and the unity and friendship of the Soviet peoples. The pavilion was air-conditioned and featured a cinema showing recent Soviet films and a restaurant serving Russian, Ukrainian, and Caucasian dishes, Students recruited from universities and the Institute of Foreign Languages were on hand throughout the exhibits to answer questions."* The entrance hall of the pavilion was lined with marble and paved with rare stones from the Urals. It greeted visitors with an enormous mural depicting “Outstanding People of the Land of the Soviets,” in which a happy crowd of peaple fram all walks of life—~ aviators, scientists, theater directors, Stakhanovites, writers and collective farmers-~ad- vances as if toward the center of the hull. The crawd is dressed festively and consists of individual portraits, as in an iconostasis. The diversity of the occupational groups featured in the mural is a classic statement of the late 1930s official line that class conflict was a thing of the past in the Soviet Union. Some forty-eight Soviet celebrities can be recog- nized; a chart identified each one for the edification of uninformed fairgoers. The mural, commissioned especially for the fair, was produced by a team of eleven artists under the supervision of the prominent Socialist Realist Vasilii Efanov. Flanking che mural, like patron saints, were states in red marble of the founding father Lenin and his successor Stalin, whose separation from the crowd underlined their role as leaders of the masses According to the planning documents, the use of the mural as a background for a statue of Statin was also supposed (o represent “the unity of the party with the people.” The hall also featured a large map of the USSR made of diamonds, cubles, and semipcecious stones, showing the expansion of the industry during the first two five-year plans, ‘The map had attracted a lot of attention at the Paris exposition, and was enlarged for New York. Paintings *enerview given to the American press by Deputy Fait Coutuissioner V.V. Burgman on 21 September 1938, GARF. f. 5672. 9p. 1,4. 61.50. “Ibid. 1. 174, and €, 156, TTL Thidd. 182,190. Russia Takes the Spotlight!” New Jord Zimes, 17 May 1939; GARE, £, 5673, op. 3,4. 55, UL. 2-6; RTsKbIDNE, £82, 0p. 2.4. 785,175, *RTSKHIDNI, £82, op. 2,4, 765, U 94-5.310 Anthony Swift of episodes in the Revolution decorated the hall. The hall devoted (0 “Socialist Economy and Labor” emphasized the economic and social transformations that the USSR had undergone since the Revolution as a result of the five-year plans. Charts showed the changes in the class composition of the population, reflecting the elimination of the bourgeoisie and near elimination of independent peasant farmers, while various exhibits explained the transfer of factories and land to the people and how economic life was now planned. A diorama depicted the construction of the new socialist city, Magnitogorsk, and other displays shawed how many engineers and managers were of working-class origins and how low rents were relative to wages. There was little, however, about actual living conditions, althaugh tere was a model and photos of a wark- ers’ clu and an example of a wall newspaper. ‘The changes collectivization had brought to rural life were dramatically presented by a mechanized diorama, It first portrayed a poor, backward prerevolutionary village, with. individual farms tilled by wooden plows, a prominent and brightly lit tavern, and the man- sion of the local landlord, Then the village vanished, and in its place appeared a collective farm, tractors, and combines. Tae tavern was transformed into a kindergarten, the landlord’s mansion into a sanatorium for workers.”* The halll of transport and electric power also made much of the “before and after the Revolution” theme, with exhibits showing the expansion of railways and the increase in energy production since 1913. How the Soviet Union had harnessed namure was graphically illustrated by immense fifty-square-meter mechanized models of the Dnepr and Kuibyshev hydroelectric stations. Blectric maps outlined the various stages of the Volga Canal project. ‘The idea that humans can shape nature to their witl was a prominent theme in the World's Fair, and the Soviet exhibits of their technological victories aver nature were of a piece with the US. government's own propaganda about the TVA and other hydroelectric programs. In a sense, technological achievement was a central element in the self-identity of bath nations. The human element of all this industrial progress was also presented, with a pic- ture of a former shepherd who now was a scientist, and photos of women transport workers. ‘An aviation stand contained madels of severe] aizplanes, with marble busts of the world- renowned aviators Chkalov and Gromov. Visitors (o the pavilion gained a respite ftom the emphasis on the socialist leaps in productivity in the hall of culture and leisure, which featured exhibits of resorts, sporting activities, physical culturists, children’s camps, and schools, Prominent were paintings of patty leaders with children: Molotov at a camp, Stalin antong childven at Gorky Park, Stalin with a happy child. Although there was one bronze statue of a female physical culturist and nwo photos of women workers, woman were most often depicted as mothers. Photos showed pregnant women relaxing ata resort, women. parading with theie children, at a hospital after giving birth, Only 2 few people had non-Slavic faces. The overall impression of the exhib- its on culture and leisure was that Savier people enjoyed many opportunities in their leisure *Pavil'og SSSR na mezbdunarodeoi vystavke v N'iuslorke, Zal—Narodaoe khtoziasive 1 gatsialisticheskii ‘teud"™ (photo-album), GARF, (. $673, ep. L,d. 427, 1 2-17; Ala Hone Timer, 17 May 1939; GARE, f 5673, op. 3, 455,123, DGARK £. 5673, 00. 1d. 431, U. 2-47, and d. $5.1. 3,The Soviet World of Tomorraw 371 and that cbildten were extremely well cated for. They were also extremely physically fit, which of course had significance with regard to the country's military preparedness.** The hall dedicated to socialist city planning—the Soviet response to the “World of Tomorrow” and the “Futurama’’—was dominated by an imposing thitty-foot-high model of the Palace of Soviets, crowned by a statue of Lenin. Facing the model was a huge mural of a physical culture parade, an example of collective painting made especially for the fair under the supervision of Iurii Pimenov (Fig. 1). Au electric map of the reconstruction of Moscow showed how the city had been rebuilt since the Revolution and what plans were in store for the future. What attracted the most attention, however, was a full-scale replica of a section of the newly built Maiakovskaia metro station in Maseow, in which mirrors cre- ated the illusion of a lengthy metro platform? In the hell of art American visitors made their first acquaintance with Socialist Real- ism. The paintings frequently alluded to the Soviet Union’s industeial strength and military preparedness. Among them were Gerasimov’s “Stalin and Voroshilov,” Efanov's “An Un- forgettable Meeting” (a working woman meets Stalin at a conference on heavy industry), Fie. |. Hall of Socialist City Planning. In. I. Pimenow, Figkud ‘tary parad (1939) and a model Of B. Jofen's Palace of the Soviets, Countesy of Agitatstia ca schast'e: Sovetshoa ishucslve stalinskot epokhi. Edition Temmen, Dusseldarff-Bremen, 1994 (9, 181) AMvid., 4, £36, IL $39, and op. 3, 4. 55, Ld, id. op. 1, d. 432, IL 2-23, and og. 4, d. $5, ll. 4-5; Mew York Times, 17 May 1939.372 Anthony Swift Gorelov's “Red Army Soldiers at a Repin Exhibition at the Tretiakov Gallery,” and Savitskii’s “Red Army Soldiers with Collective Parmets (On Maneuvers)” Other paintings depicted icebreakers, electric pawer stations, collective farmers feeding soldiers, and a series of graph- ics depicting the old and new ways of life in Central Asia. ‘Theater was represented by models of different Soviet theaters, including national theaters in the republics. Some of the models revolved, showing plays scene by scene. Other exhibits were dedicated to folk arts of the peaples of the Soviet Union. Soviet art does not appear, however, to have made much of an impression on the American public, Few people mentioned it in their com- ments in the visitors’ book, and a major publications included it in their features on for- eign art. The underlying message of most of the paintings was that socialism had made the Soviet Union into a modem industrial country, powerful and united. Gerasimov’s portrait of Stalin and Defense Minister Voroshitov on the Kremlin walls showed the military lead- ers in army greatcoats buttoned up against a storm which has just passed aver, gazing vigi- lantly and. confidently into the distant west under a clearing sky. Garelov’s Red Anny soldiers are laughing as a museum guide lectures them about Repin’s nineteenth-centary painting of Cossacks writing a mocking letter of defiance to Russia’s historical foe, the Turkish Sultan. ‘The soldiers clearly identify with the Cossacks in their attitude toward threats from abroad. The soldiers ia Savitskii’s painting are having a test from field maneu- vers, enjoying tea and snacks provided by cheerful peasants at an idealized collective farm, complete with a steaming samovar, hand organ, and a portrait of Vorashilov on the wall of ahouse, The Red Army, purified and strengthened by the recent purges, is united with the Soviet people and ready to defend socialism. ‘The hall devoted to science, literature, and the press was the most pedestrian. A stand explained the workings of the Academy of Sciences, citing Lenin on the importance of using the culture left hy capitalism ta build socialism, while other stands displayed the variety of Soviet press publications. ‘The library exhibit showed a photo of the newly com- pleted Lenin library, along with photos of village and factory libraries. ‘The section on chitdren’s literature emphasized the increase in publications for children since 1913 and was flanked by parteaits of Lenin and Stalin in paternalistic poses with children. In keeping with the subtext of military preparedness, Stalin was depicted with uniformed children, with planes flying overhead. A rare reference to a past that was not negative was a display of the original diploma of Mikzail Lomonosov, the son of poor fisherman who tose through education to become a scientist (and, not incidentally, Peter the Great’s panegyrist) in the sighteenth century. ‘The apotheosis of the pavilion was the Hall of the Unity and Friendship of the Soviet Peoples, which was meant to sum up all the exhibits on display. It contained an enormous mural, two hundred sixty-five feet long and twenty-cight feet high, depicting the wealth of the Soviet Union and the diversity and unity of its multiethnic population. In the fore- ground hundreds of life-size figures representing various nationalities and occupations were moving toward a central figure of a young man. holding a copy of the Stalin constitution SGARF.f. 5673, op. 1, d. 433, lL. 2-73, and op. 3. d. $5, 1.5. Mbid,, 0p. 1, 4.434, IL 3-20, and op. 3,4. 5, 1.6The Soviet World of Tomorrow 373 Behind him were the Palace of Soviets and the new Moscow. In the background of the parade of peoples was an idealized landscape of the Soviet Union, the landscape of a devel- oped industrial country, filled with busy factories and neat, prosperous farms, dams, power stations, mills, railroads, acd oil fields, testifying to the progress that the five-year plans had achieved. I¢was a land without a history, for no presocialist buildings were visible. A gteat maay non-Slavic national types were represented, some in ordinary dress, but most were type-cast in ethnic dress, as if to suggest that they had a longer path to tread toward modernity. The marchers were a people guided only by ideology, and carried only the works of Lenin and Stalin, or copies of the constitution. The mural represented a Soviet Union in which people of various professions and ethnicities worked in, harmony and, guided toy socialism, had created a weaithy and prosperous nation, Lest visitors miss the point, above the mural was 4 quotation by Stalin: “We have now a fully fledged multinational socialist state which has stood all the tests and the stability of which might well be envied by any national state in any part of the world.” On completing their tour of the Soviet pavilion, visitors could dine in the restaurant, watch a film in the cinema, or buy books, magazines, or records in the souvenit shop. They could also visit the two other Soviet contributions to the fair, the Arctic Pavilion and the Soviet exhibit at the Hall of Nations, The Arctic Pavilion was dedicated to Soviet polar exploration, with maps of expeditions and displays of equipment. The Hall of Nations exhibit focused on the political and social structure of the USSR, with a heavy emphasis on the Stalin constitution. In keeping with the theme of democracy, a film showed scenes from. the 1937 elections to the Supreme Soviet, and a diagram traced the governmental steuctures of the USSR. Copies of the constitution in several languages were displayed on a tabie int the center of the hall. The ceiling was adorned with an illuminated seal of the Soviet Union, while on the walls were the seals of the constituent republics, made of jewels and semipre- cious stones.” The Amexican reaction to the Soviet pavilion was largely positive. As would be expected. Communist-affiliated publications such as Mew Afasses and the Daily Worker praised the exhibits as a demonstration of the cultural and economic achievements of the Soviet Union and evidence of its superiority. Yet the mainstream American media also printed admiring reports of the pavilion and the evocative power of its displays. The weekly record of middle- brow American taste, Zéme magazine, ranked the Soviet structure the best foreign exhibit in its survey of the fair’s offerings." Glowing reviews and photos of the pavilion and its exhibits were distributed by the Associated Press service and (he Hearst syndicate to papers bid, op. 1d. 430, IL 2-5, and op. 3, d. $5, 1. 5-6; M. Ol gin, “Panorama ‘Eadinstvo i Dauzhby sovetsaka asrodoy." Pravda, | July 1939. The mucal was painted by F.. Fedacovskii and V. N. Iakavlev. SGARK, £. 5674, op. 3, 4.55, 1,2 “Tames Dugan, “The World of Today” Naw Afasses, 13 Sune 1939; “Merk Twain in tie USSR," ibid, | August 1939; Michael Kartar, "Kids Flock to the Fain" Darly Worker; 9 Jane 1939; “Best Soviet Musie Heard in Pavilion 4 World's Fair, ibid, 21 Tuy 1999; "Noted American Authors Take the Lead in Soviet Pavilion's Hall of Fame." iid. 24 July 1939 World's Fae.” Zine (12 June £939) 12.374 Anthony Swift across the United States.* The moderately socialist but resolutely anti-Communist Marton, while mocking the size and mass of the design, admitted that “when those great offset walls are under floodiight and you read the inscriptions under the. plaques of Lenin and Stalin about socialism being established, you get an involuntary shiver”®” The Mew Yark Fines listed the reproduction of the Moscow metro station as one of the outstanding foreign at- tractions at the fair, and gave a good review to the restanrant.® The two ZIS autos on display also got high marks in the Zines, which reported that they were. “so like American cars thata driver would not remark them in traffic.” What did the Ametican public at large make of what was almost certainly their first encounter with the unrelenting optimism of Socialist Realisin? In the eyes of the fairgoing public the Soviet pavilion was a great success, and it was the biggest hit among the foreiga exhibits.” The overwhelming majority of comments in the visitors’ books were quite fa- vorable, suggesting that many Americans were at least receptive to the Soviet vision of prosperity, It was “a revelation," in the words of one fairgoer. American visitors found the pavilion very beantiful and were impressed by its displays of the achievements of soctal- ism. Mrs, Joseph Oldenbach wrote “Bravo—you’ve proven yourselves,” while William More commented “If this is what the revolution brought Russia—on with the revolution.” ‘Tobe sure, a few people felt thac che pavilion contained too much propaganda or too much about Stalin, and some asked whether the exhibits portrayed Russia accurately, Jecry Schwartz found the exhibits “very nice but could use a little less Stallion [sic] praise and a lot more about that funky country”; another visitor opined that the pavilion was “inspired by the devil." Only a handful of visitors criticized the exhibits on more specific grounds, pointing out that they did not portray the Soviet government accurately or mention the role of the OGPU (secret police) in Soviet tife.*! Not all the Soviet efforts paid off. Diagrams on the productivity of labor and growth of wages in the USSR attracted scant attention from visitors, while the Arctic pavilion was sparsely attended, The cinema was a major disappointment, the Soviet commissioners reported to Molotov. Fairgoers were reluctant to sacrifice a portion of their day at the fair ¢o watching films, and even when the tickets were reduced from forty to twenty-five cents, the cinema drew only about two hundred fifty people a day.* Surprisingly, there was little negative reaction at the faie to the late August annouace- ment that Stalin had made a nonaggression pact with Hitler, although the New Fork World. Telegram published a cartoon, with the caption “Heil Hitler,” showing the Sovier worker statue wearing a Nazi armband and making a fascist salute, letting the red star drop from his, The Soviet fair commission subscribed ta press clipping services which supplied it with dozens of articles and photos that appeared in American publications (GARE, f. 5673, op. 1, dd. 368-84). Douglas Haskell, “At the, Faie" Narian (20 May 19°39): 504 John Markland, “‘Abvoad’ at the Bair” New York 7imes, 4 Sune 1939, sec. 10, Charlowte Hughes, “For the Gou:met and Others: Russian Fond in the Soviet Style,” ibid., 16 July 1939, see, 2 *Philip B. Coan, “Fair Sees Foreign Autos.” ibid. 9 July 1939, see. 10. “Architecewral Rerun, cited in Phe Weld af Temarro: The 1939 Neve York World's Retr el. Larry Zim (New York, 1988) “°'Kniga zepisci posctitelei pevil’ons,” 27 July 1939, GARR, £ 5673, op. 1,4. 248, 1.65 08; ibid, d. 250, IL 8 24, 26 (16 August 1939). “RISKCDIDNL, £82, 0p. 2, 4.765, IL 1-3, 30-31Tie Soviet World of Tomorraw 375 grasp." On 2 September, Polish National Alliance Day, the fair corporation guards around and in the Soviet pavilion, fearing that crowds could damage it atmosphere following the German attack on Poland, but thei fears proved unfounded. Remarkably few fairgoers made comments criticizing the Soviet Union's new friendship with Hitler, even after the mid-September invasion and annexation of eastern Poland, nor did the overwhelming majority of Americans who went ¢o the pavilion after late August evince any hostility toward the new direction of Soviet foreign policy, despite the heavy ctiticism the pact received in the mainstream press. If anythiag, there was a small upsurge of pto-Americanism ia the comments left by visitors, which was manifested in praise for American democracy and neutrality. The invasion of Fialand, which did more than any- thing to turn American public opinion against the USSR, came only in November, after the fair season had ended. Although ordinary visitors (and more than a few journalists) were duly impressed by the lavish structure and the costly materials that had gone inta it, some American etities disparaged the effusive architecture and art. The Massachusetts poet and novelist John Peale Bishop, writing in the Xenyon Review, found the worker's statue poorly proportioned and executed, compared the pavilion co a tamb, and suggested that as propaganda it was “somewhat primary ‘The Architectural Review panned the pavilion, remarking sourly that “Russia is distinguished by its vulgarity?” A Mew Fork Zimes atts critic was equally dismissive of Soviet sculpture: “the U.S.S.R. specializes in high polishes, splendid materi- als, heroic style, and the kind of realism that becomes grotesque; not really realism, but caliper-like enlargements from life dressed in baroque exuberance ™ Comments like these used a high-brow, condescending tone (the key words are-“vulgarity,” “grotesque” and “exu- berance”} to suggest that the Sovier display was a bit tao mmuch—too common, too abvious, too popular—to deserve praise from the discriminating. It was.a tone that was also directed at other fair exhibits, particularly the corporate buildings, which were equally successful in appealing ta the tastes of the fairgoing public. ‘Tae most criticism, predictably, came fcom celigious and patriotic quartets, and was leveled primarily at the gigantic statue that towered over the pavilion, which was compared to Satan. The furor was such that the fair corporation was farced to assert American su- premacy by running up the stars and stripes on top of the parachute jump, so they would fly higher than the red star the Soviet warker was halding.® A national Catholic weekly, Americ, fearing that the American public seemed to be snccumbing to Soviet influence at the fair, * fiaw York World Telagrans, 23 August 1939, see. 2. ‘The cartoon was repented in Tite Mew Leader (2 Septem ber 1939): 6. “Paix Will. Guard Soviet Pavilion #8 Poles Artive.” Aw Jork Past, | September 1959. The Beitish and French pavilions were also guarded. GARR, f, 5673, op 1, dd, 250-53. These arc the visitors’ comment books for the period from 15 August through 24 Sepeember. “Jolin Peale Bishop, “World's Fait Notes” Kenyon Review 1:13 (1939): 241, 244, 247. “ Architecterat Review, 1S June 1939. “Hew York Times, V6 July 1939, $02. 9. “°U$, Flag Will Fly Faic 1 Foot Above Soviet Stan Weie York Times, 30 May 1939; “World's Fair “Satan” Nesesmeek (5 lune 1939): 15.316 Anthony Swift published exposés attacking the pavilion’s “poisonous propaganda." New York Mayor LaGuardia, always controversial, came under attack for comparing the revolutionary ori- gins of the United States and the Soviet Union in his remarks at the pavilion’s dedication." One of the defenders of the pavilion against the jingoistic onslaught was Emie Pyle, shortly to become America’s most famous war correspondent, who mocked the uproar over the flag in a syndicated article and called for more tolerance.” ‘The pavilion and its success in New York were widely publicized in the Soviet Union, where Kokkinaki’s transatlantic flight received extensive attention,” and many articles in the press were devated to the preparations for the fair. its opening, and descriptions of the Soviet pavilion. Two postage stamps, picturing the pavilion and its sculpture, were issued to commemorate the World's Fair Coverage of the fair presented Soviet participation and its positive reception by 4 foreign public as a confirmation of the greatness achieved under socialism. For its technology, art, and social policies to be received favorably in New York City, the ultimate contemporary symbol of mademity in. the mast advanced capitalist state, was a powerful legitimation for a regime that had imposed wrenching hardships on its citizens for the past decade in the name of socialist construction. Pravda teaders were told that of the more than fifty foreign pavilions, the USSR pavil- ion was considered by many observers to be the most striking by virtue of its size and architectural design." The Soviet press described the exhibits in detail, lavishly praising them aad recounting how impressed the visitors were-by the demonstrations of the richness of life in the Soviet Union. Articles about the fair were often iaced with observations about America’s high level of unemployment and the “crisis of capitalism.” Referring to the pavilion's monumentalist design, a Soviet artist who visited the fair wrote in Liseraturnata gezete (nal the pavilion was like no other in the solidness of its appearance and its ability ¢0 tell “the living truth” about the country and the future of its people.” Z-vestiiz, in an article approved by Molotov before publication, used coverage of the Soviet exhibits as an oppor- tunity to teach readers how to understand socialism and its achievements.* In short, Soviet press coverage presented the fair as proof that the Soviet Union was the envy of the world. Nat did Soviet citizens have to wait long to see for themselves their government's depiction *fohm A. Tooley, $.1, "Red Poison Runs Out of Fac," America (17 June 1939): 222-25, Ciene Tunney, “The Ruby Star Atop aColassal Soviet Pake: The Red Blot of Bad Blood at the New York Fait” ibid, (8 Joly 1939}: 292- 93. Sew Fork Times, 18, 20, and 21 May 1939. RTSKBIDNL, £82, 09.2, 6.765, 1.49 (ianslations of foreign coverage of the Soviel pavilion sent to Molotov). “Numerous attcles covering the trans-Atlantic fight are found in Pravda, 26, 28, 29, and 30 Apeil, and Mey 1939. Paie Issues Counted Up.” Mew Herk Fimas; 23 April 1939, sec. M1. SM, OF gin, “Odkrytie mezhdunarcdno’ vystevki v N'iuforke,” Pravda, 3 May 1939; “Uspekh sovetskogo pavil'ona na N’i-lorksicai vystavke;" ibid., 7 September 1939, SM, O gia, “Pavil’on SSSR na vsemimoi vystavke v N'ie-Torke"; and “Otkrytic sovetskogo pavil’ona na ‘sctnimoi vystavke v Nviu-lorke,” and “Amcrikenskic i inostrannye zhurnalisti o sovetskam pavil’ote,” all in Pravda, 18 May 1939: /rvesaia, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, and 28 April, 18 May, 22 June, and 6 Tuly (939; Literatuinaia gazeta, W May and 6 Septeniber 1939; Sovetshoe iskusstva, | May and LL June 1999: Komsemsa? chaz prarda,\4 Tune 1939, sack Rabinovich, “Lz amerikanskikh vpechatlenii" Literanernata gazeta, WO July 1958 SB, Agapow, “My na vsemirtal vystavke,” Zevescita, 24 Apell 199%; RTEKAIDNI, f. 82, op. 2, d. 764, lL, [57-67The Soviet World of Tomorrow = 377 of what the five-year plans had achieved, for in August 1939 the All-Union Agricultural Exposition opened in Mascaw. The Soviet pavilion was one of the largest and mast costly at the World's Pair. Bight hun- dred tons of marble, of nine varieties, were brought from the USSR for use in the pavition’s construction. The colossal statue of a worker bearing a red star was the second highest structure at the fair, exceeded only by the Trylon. The pavilion and its exhibits created an image of a strong, prosperous nation which had made great strides since the Revolution as a result of Stalin's leadership. Its diverse population worked cheerfully and in harmony without fear of unemployment, a message that had resonance for Depression-era Ameri- cans. The pavilion demonstrated that the USSR was now a great industrial power, a force to be reckoned with in world affairs, and a state that ensured the welfare of all its citizens. Unlike the American corporations which exhibited at the fair, the Soviet Union pro~ duced no dramatic vision of the future, of the world of tomorrow. ‘The Soviet pavition aimed not to construct an imaginary future, but to show that the future already existed—and it was in the USSR, There was no evidence that the Soviets had given any thought to what would come when their preseat plans had been achieved; all the exhibits showed projects which had been completed or were under construction. Nor did the Soviet pavilion refer to the past, except a5 a source of comparisons with the present to show that the prerevolutionary past had been grim but thankfully overcome by the Revolution. ‘The absence of the past distinguished the Soviet exhibits from those of the other European powers, whether democratic or authoritarian, Great Britain celebrated its history with a display of the original Magna Carta, suggesting that modern democracy had British origins, while France cultivated its image as a civilizing influence with an exposi- tion of five centuries of Brench art, Nazi Germany chose not to participate in the faic, but Tealy was there in force, having built an immense pavilion with a similarly colonnaded entrance and a two-hundred-foot tower fram which water cascaded into an illuminated pool. Italy's exhibition was solidly grounded in the nation’s past, presenting fascisma as the cul- mination of Italian historical development. A. series of dioracoas on the first floor depicted the geowth of Rome from antiquity to the present, The Soviet pavilion, in striking contcast, avoided any reference to the cultural heritage of Russia or its empire. Also conspicuous was the absence of the consumer goods that filled the halls of the American corporations. ‘The Soviet people represented in the pavilion found happiness in production and the social benefits provided by the state, not in the acquisition of consumer goods. The Soviet utopia was a productionist utopia, rooted firmly in a transcendent present. ‘To point out that the American visitors to the fair were receptive to the Soviet Union's display of its achievements is not to argue that Americans were conviaced of the superiority of socialism, or were not sometimes sceptical of the idealized picture of Soviet life. Yet for Tn its present-cemteredness the Soviet pavilion can he seen as an attempt to realize the idea of che future inherent in the zesthetics of Socialist Realism. Boris Groys, for example, has argued thiat “in its planning for the futuce .. Socialist Reatism sought to hase itself upon what hes been huiltalceady, on che ‘presence ofthe furure in the present, asthe saying went” See his “Stalinism as Aesthetic Phenomenon,” in Zekstura: Russian Essays on Visual Clue, £0, Alla Bfimova and Ley Manavich (Chicago, 1993), 122.378 Anthony Swift Annerieans of the Depression, New Deal era, the Soviet pavilion spoke a language of tech- nological progress that they could readily understand because they shared it. The 1930s witnessed the building of the Empire State Building in record time, the construction of monumental, neoclassical government buildings along Washington’s Mall, the carving of the gigantic sculptures on Mt. Rushmore, and the erection of huge dams to harness natural energy. One of the main themes of both the World’s Fair and the Saviet pavilion was the taming of nature to meet human needs, an idea which had great mass appeal, whatever the ideology. When Ivan Zamiatin, captais of the ship which brought the Soviet materials and displays through an Asctic sea route to New York, boasted in an interview that “in the Soviet wedo not serve nature, we make nature serve us," it was a boast that Americans could easily identify with The gigaatism of the Soviet pavilion, with its enormous statue af a worker, was hardly out of place at the New York World’s Fair, where the soaring pylon was a common embel- lishment to both earporate and national pavilions, and a sixty-foot statue af George Wash- ington loomed before the U.S. federal pavilion, The American workers at the fair site were. in open admiration of the size and mass of the Saviet pavilion! Even workers who were dismissive of anything socialist, wrote a Brooklyn electrician employed on the construc tion of the pavilion in a letter to the Soviet faic commission, were impressed by the look of the ZIS automobiles used by the fair commissioners. His suggestion that Russian automo- biles should be included in the exhibits, as they would be “more convincing than volumes of Marxist doctrine.” was insightful, and may shed some light on the success of the Soviet pavilion with the American public. It was Socialist Realism’s heroic myth of buman progress through science and technology, presented in an imposing and rich setting with up-to-date methods such as film, dioramas, and moving mechanical models, and not Stalinist ideological posturing, that won over American visitors to the 1939 New York Warld’s Fair. ‘To be sure, there was also an element of rivalry in the displays of technology and sacial benefits. The Soviet Union was a potential competitor with the United States, an implica tion grasped intuitively by the Americans who wrote comments such as “Very beautiful but I would rather he an American” or “It is a very beautiful country but [ think they are trying to show that they ave better than America® At the next international exposition, held in Brussels in 1958, the competition between the new superpawers was nearly to overshadow the celebration of postwar Furopean resurgence. If the fair was a public-relations success for the Soviet government in 1939, that suc- cess was ultimately overshadowed by the war and the Soviet Union’s break with the West- ern democracies. Shortly after the fair season closed, the USSR attacked neutral Finland, casting its lat with the aggressors in the public's perception, Unlike the invasion of Paland, this offensive could not be justified as an attempt (o curtail Hitler’s expansion, ‘The result- ing shift in American opinion agaiast the Soviet Union was undoubtedly a major factor in © Soviet Skipper Cuts 7 Days Off Voyage to U.S." Mew Kark Herald Tribune, 1& Mare’ 1939. \Warion (20 May 1939) $94. ‘Later from David Simmons, no cate, GARE, £5673, 0p. 14. 6,1 241 Knlga zapisei 16 and 18 August 1939, ibid, 250, 11, Ld, 220 ab,The Soviet World of Tomarraw = 379 its decision in November 1939 to withdraw from the faic's 1940 season and ship the pavil- ion back to Moscow, where plans were made for reassembling itin Gorky Park. When the fair reopened in May 1940 under the slogan “Peace and Freedom,” the Soviet site had been replaced by an “American Common” for outdoor events, and the Finnish pavilion was ex- hibiting photos of the destruction wreaked by Soviet hombing. A Soviet official reported to Molotav that the whole tone of opinion had become hostile nat only jn-the press but also in the comments of fair officials and participants, wha were saying that the fair was better aif. without the USSR. Tbid., d. 1, L195. The decision is deted 11 November 1939, and is not explained. Thave nat been able to determine the subsequent fate of the pavilion, but plans for ee-ereeting it were diseussed until Mey 1941, wick suggests that Germany's June invasion put an end to this endeavor along with werk on the Palace of Soviets. (bid., 4.396). RTSKAIDNI,f. 82, op. 2, d. 765, Il, 168-69; Mew Kork Past, May 1940; New Bork Mlarld Telegram U1 May 1940.